Bsa Unanimously Reaffirms Homosexual Ban

[ERayR]

I think, if I asked you to prove that, you could not (at least, not from any objective study). This is exactly what I am talking about, in regards to stereotyping.

Do you honestly think a person with ssa is not going to be attracted to young men?

Then, perhaps, they should all be locked away from decent society.

Don't be ridiculous. At the same time they should not be placed in temptations pat either.

Do you honestly believe this is typical behavior of MOST heterosexual men?? It's not, ERay.

Don't be obtuse, it is not becoming. Nobody was talking about behaviors. The word I used, and it was used for a reason, was attracted to. Thankfully most people have enough control of themselves and knowledge of proper actions and responses that they don't submit to their attractions. Unfortunately those that don't usually seek positions and access to situations where it is easier to act on their impulses, (ask any law enforcement official).

I don't think grown men of any orientation should, necessarily be showering with young boys, but that is for their protection, as well as the protection of the boys. It's not because MOST men (hetero or otherwise) are attracted to young boys, but rather to protect from the exceptional man who IS (hetero or otherwise).

Again I did not use the word most orintimate the concept that most were involved. What I did say is that the BSA was to be commended in taking action to reduce the chances of harm to the young men entrusted to their care. My guess is that when one of these events surface and we hear of a young man or several young men being harmed you would be up front condemning them for not doing enough.

Again I do salute them for not caving to political correctness to the possible detriment of our young men.

[Calm]

Many laws are made to control the exceptions. Most men and women hopefully won't rape if allowed to, most men and women wouldn't murder if allowed to, but we still have laws put into place because there are sufficient numbers who would do it if there were no consequences for it (see areas of the world where rape and murder are commonplace to see that more participate in them then they do when there are consequences for it.)

I do not know why the BSA decided to do this as they did not release their confidential proceedings so I am not making any judgment one way or the other.

[Tacenda]

Do you honestly think a person with ssa is not going to be attracted to young men?

Don't be ridiculous. At the same time they should not be placed in temptations pat either.

Don't be obtuse, it is not becoming. Nobody was talking about behaviors. The word I used, and it was used for a reason, was attracted to. Thankfully most people have enough control of themselves and knowledge of proper actions and responses that they don't submit to their attractions. Unfortunately those that don't usually seek positions and access to situations where it is easier to act on their impulses, (ask any law enforcement official).

Again I did not use the word most orintimate the concept that most were involved. What I did say is that the BSA was to be commended in taking action to reduce the chances of harm to the young men entrusted to their care. My guess is that when one of these events surface and we hear of a young man or several young men being harmed you would be up front condemning them for not doing enough.

Again I do salute them for not caving to political correctness to the possible detriment of our young men.

But now what of the heterosexual men who abuse? Is that going to be shoved under the carpet? I don't think gays are like some animals that lust after just anyone, they have feelings just like heterosexuals. They develop a relationship that is responsible, with another adult, just as heterosexuals.

I wonder if a study has ever been conducted on criminal court cases to see how many men convicted of abuse have homosexual tendencies, probably not since that might discriminate. I think I'll have to do some research. But my hunch is that it's just as likely for a heterosexual to abuse.

Also, how sad that a young boy who has admited they are homosexual is also not allowed in. At first I thought it was just the leaders.

[ERayR]

But now what of the heterosexual men who abuse? Is that going to be shoved under the carpet? I don't think gays are like some animals that lust after just anyone, they have feelings just like heterosexuals. They develop a relationship that is responsible, with another adult, just as heterosexuals.

I wonder if a study has ever been conducted on criminal court cases to see how many men convicted of abuse have homosexual tendencies, probably not since that might discriminate. I think I'll have to do some research. But my hunch is that it's just as likely for a heterosexual to abuse.

Also, how sad that a young boy who has admited they are homosexual is also not allowed in. At first I thought it was just the leaders.

What a inane question. I would certainly hope it would not be "shoved under the carpet". There is absolutely no information there for you to make that accusation.

A young boy who is an admitted homosexual is probably just as likely to try to initiate improper contact as an adult. Maybe more so because at that age they have harmones raging and are more likely to experiment.

[Libs]

Do you honestly think a person with ssa is not going to be attracted to young men?

Again, you are assuming that people cannot manage their "attractions". And, no, I do not think that every SS attracted person is going to, necessarily, be attracted to young men. And, even if they are, that shouldn't be a problem, unless there is something wrong with them. Only someone with a serious mental issue, is going to act on an attraction to young people (boys or girls).

Don't be ridiculous. At the same time they should not be placed in temptations pat either.

Then, again, perhaps they shouldn't be out walking around on the streets. There is "temptation" everywhere.

Don't be obtuse, it is not becoming. Nobody was talking about behaviors. The word I used, and it was used for a reason, was attracted to. Thankfully most people have enough control of themselves and knowledge of proper actions and responses that they don't submit to their attractions. Unfortunately those that don't usually seek positions and access to situations where it is easier to act on their impulses, (ask any law enforcement official).

I know that, Ray, but unless someone has a record of molesting young children, you can't go around treating them like potential criminals (even if they happen to be gay). Take precautions, absolutely!! With everyone, not just gays. Double up on leadership and make sure no one is put in a position of either being tempted or being accused. That's sensible all the way around, and I am all for it. But, don't single people out (like gay men), who have no criminal record, as being more likely to molest young boys than anyone else. That's not sensible. That's just plain unfair and discriminatory.

Again I did not use the word most orintimate the concept that most were involved. What I did say is that the BSA was to be commended in taking action to reduce the chances of harm to the young men entrusted to their care. My guess is that when one of these events surface and we hear of a young man or several young men being harmed you would be up front condemning them for not doing enough.

Perhaps, but I would not be accusing anyone of putting kids in danger, just because of someone's sexual orientation. There are plenty of ways to keep kids safe and those things have been implemented (mostly making sure no leader is ever alone with any kid)..THAT is sensible.

Again I do salute them for not caving to political correctness to the possible detriment of our young men.

A certain percentage of these young men are gay (including inside the LDS Church). Are these boys not worth fighting for? What kind of "detriment" do you suppose they experience, when they come up against this kind of discrimination?

[Tacenda]

What a inane question. I would certainly hope it would not be "shoved under the carpet". There is absolutely no information there for you to make that accusation.

A young boy who is an admitted homosexual is probably just as likely to try to initiate improper contact as an adult. Maybe more so because at that age they have harmones raging and are more likely to experiment.

I probably shouldn't have said they would "shove under the carpet" any abuse done by a heterosexual. I feel I threw the BSA under the bus with that statement.

Question...my nephew just came out this year that he is gay. He teaches high school math. Is he a threat to his students? If you don't mind me asking.

[KevinG]

I probably shouldn't have said they would "shove under the carpet" any abuse done by a heterosexual. I feel I threw the BSA under the bus with that statement. Question...my nephew just came out this year that he is gay. He teaches high school math. Is he a threat to his students? If you don't mind me asking.

He is less likely to find himself in a compromising or tempting situation than a man in a position to teach young boys moral lessons while on a camp ojut.

[KevinG]

Can anyone find a scientific study (real numbers not just propaganda) on the correlation or lack of correlation between homosexuality and predatory behavior? I tied to search and find articles with no real studies attached.

[Jaybear]

Can anyone find a scientific study (real numbers not just propaganda) on the correlation or lack of correlation between homosexuality and predatory behavior? I tied to search and find articles with no real studies attached.

Question for you: If I can find a report that black men have a higher statistical probability to be incarcerated for commiting a violent crime, do you think that such a finding would be a valid basis to support the BSA making a decision to ban blacks from scouting.

[KevinG]

Question for you: If I can find a report that black men have a higher statistical probability to be incarcerated for commiting a violent crime, do you think that such a finding would be a valid basis to support the BSA making a decision to ban blacks from scouting.

Only the avowed gang members of all colors.

I'm asking for those numbers to either prove or disprove the notion that a gay man would be at greater risk (or lesser risk, or same risk) as a heterosexual. A scientific study could break in favor of your argument.

[KevinG]

After some study I find conflicting studies usually posted by advocates of one side or the other. I have learned that my question should really be abot "ephebophiles" as a percentage of Homosexual vs. Heterosexual populations. Meaning are post-pubescent underage children at greater risk of grooming and inappropriate contact at the hands of homo vs. heterosexual males?

Even if the studies show no difference the membership of the BSA still has the right to accept their own traditional definition of morality under the 1st Amendment.

Here is a pdf of various studies - http://www.hli.org/f...terosexuals.pdf complete with a discussion of the politics of such studies and an index of the study results. It does state how difficult it is to get unbiased studies given the political nature of the issue.

[KevinG]

PS

Im not trying to bash anyone here I'm just trying to find out if the BSA has a rational reason other than their stated values for their decision.

[Tacenda]

PS

Im not trying to bash anyone here I'm just trying to find out if the BSA has a rational reason other than their stated values for their decision.

Thanks for taking the time to research the important question. It might prove helpful in understanding why they made such a sweeping and far reaching decision to exclude all gays young or old.

I'll get busy reading, I probably should have waited to read it first before commenting.

[KevinG]

To be plain. I have no idea what kind of debate went on in the BSA meeting.

Regardless of behavioral patterns it is the right of the BSA to advocate their own definition of "morally straight" and given the three largest sponsors of BSA are Catholics, Methodists and Mormons they are not likely to divert from their present course.

[Jaybear]

Only the avowed gang members of all colors.

I'm asking for those numbers to either prove or disprove the notion that a gay man would be at greater risk (or lesser risk, or same risk) as a heterosexual. A scientific study could break in favor of your argument.

But your dissembling is noted.

Dissembling: Conceal one true motive.

My argument is that is that such studies are irrelevant. Individuals should not be prejuded based on group statistics. I thought that point was patently obvious.

How would you feel if you lost your job, not because you did something wrong, but because there was a statistic study that showed that people that shared your ethnic heritage were more likely to sexually harass a co worker than someone from other ethnic groups.

PS

Im not trying to bash anyone here I'm just trying to find out if the BSA has a rational reason other than their stated values for their decision.

If that is what your are doing, you need to be more precise in your analysis. Remember the ban does not apply to closeted homosexuals, like Larry Craig and other outspoken anti-gay activists. You need to find a study which removes closeted gays from the equation. I try to be open minded, but I wouldn't trust a self-loathing closeted gay man with my children. Talk about head cases.

[KevinG]

Sexual preference is not an ethnic group. I have lost jobs because i was a Mormon (verified by the recruiter) and chose not to sue, complain or whine. I moved on and didn't bother to force myself on someone who didn't want me around because of my religion.

The studies cited in the appendix were of a variety of sources. None distinguished between closeted and avowed homosexuals. In one study supporting the opposing view however the study was limited to children under 6 which avoided the issue of ephebophiles all together so it is not an appropriate measurement for Scout age boys and their leaders.

Try to avoid the politics and address the issue of "are avowed homosexuals at greater risk of being practicing ephebophiles?" There is no discussing this with you if you insist on turning it into another political cat fight.

[ERayR]

I probably shouldn't have said they would "shove under the carpet" any abuse done by a heterosexual. I feel I threw the BSA under the bus with that statement. Question...my nephew just came out this year that he is gay. He teaches high school math. Is he a threat to his students? If you don't mind me asking.

I have no idea if he is a threat to his students or not. I don't know him. Why would you ask somebody on a discussion board if your nephew is a threat to his students. The whole thing with the BSA is that they don't know either and are trying to shut off all the avenues they can. Obviously they can't get every avenue .

[ERayR]

Question for you: If I can find a report that black men have a higher statistical probability to be incarcerated for commiting a violent crime, do you think that such a finding would be a valid basis to support the BSA making a decision to ban blacks from scouting.

Now we start with the race card. First homophobe then a racist. If you haven't anything but inane comparisons to add then sit on the sidelines.

[ERayR]

After some study I find conflicting studies usually posted by advocates of one side or the other. I have learned that my question should really be abot "ephebophiles" as a percentage of Homosexual vs. Heterosexual populations. Meaning are post-pubescent underage children at greater risk of grooming and inappropriate contact at the hands of homo vs. heterosexual males?

Even if the studies show no difference the membership of the BSA still has the right to accept their own traditional definition of morality under the 1st Amendment.

Here is a pdf of various studies - http://www.hli.org/f...terosexuals.pdf complete with a discussion of the politics of such studies and an index of the study results. It does state how difficult it is to get unbiased studies given the political nature of the issue.

Any male who has sexual contact with another male, be they young or older, is by definition a homosexual, or at least bisexual, whether they self identify or not. A heterosexual, by definition, is attracted to those of the opposite sex.

[KevinG]

Any male who has sexual contact with another male, be they young or older, is by definition a homosexual, or at least bisexual, whether they self identify or not. A heterosexual, by definition, is attracted to those of the opposite sex.

Understood... but what I'm trying to gauge is the relative risk of having an avowed homosexual male leader vs. an avowed heterosexual male leader. We could throw in avowed heterosexual female leaders too just for fun. (Of course I'm going to be accused of misogyny if I advocate male role models as a good practice for Scouting).

[ERayR]

Understood... but what I'm trying to gauge is the relative risk of having an avowed homosexual male leader vs. an avowed heterosexual male leader. We could throw in avowed heterosexual female leaders too just for fun. (Of course I'm going to be accused of misogyny if I advocate male role models as a good practice for Scouting).

I don't know if you can. That is the point of the BSA ban. I think it is about limiting all the possibilities they can. It is about protecting the boys but it is also about limiting liability should something happen.

[Jaybear]

Try to avoid the politics and address the issue of "are avowed homosexuals at greater risk of being practicing ephebophiles?" There is no discussing this with you if you insist on turning it into another political cat fight.

Kevin, let me make this perfectly clear.

I find the very question offensive. As it suggest that its perfectly acceptable to use statistical probabilities to justify institutional discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals.

Its seems to me that you want to have this discussion without justifying the relevance of the question.

Now we start with the race card. First homophobe then a racist. If you haven't anything but inane comparisons to add then sit on the sidelines.

Ray, its called an "analogy."

You know its wrong to use statistics to justify discrimination against black people.

Yet, here we are trying to justify discrimination against gays based on statistics.

You say the analogy is "inane", but make no effort to explain the substantive difference that makes the analogy inane.

In fact, the relevance of the analogy is the very reason that people on your side of the issue took so long to accept that sexual orientation is not a choice.

[Jaybear]

I don't know if you can. That is the point of the BSA ban. I think it is about limiting all the possibilities they can. It is about protecting the boys but it is also about limiting liability should something happen.

You don't know what its about, because you didn't vote, and you weren't in the room.

I can just as easily say that the ban is about emphasizing to the youth, the immorality of homosexuality.

We would both be guessing.

You claim that its about limiting liability is easily proven. Organizations have insurance to cover these claims. Do you honestly believe that if they reverse the policy and allow gays into scouting, their cost of their insurance policies will go up? If so, please show one insurance company that offers lower rates to companies that discriminate against gays.

[KevinG]

Kevin, let me make this perfectly clear.

I find the very question offensive. As it suggest that its perfectly acceptable to use statistical probabilities to justify institutional discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals.

Its seems to me that you want to have this discussion without justifying the relevance of the question.

Ray, its called an "analogy."

You know its wrong to use statistics to justify discrimination against black people.

Yet, here we are trying to justify discrimination against gays based on statistics.

Ummm... no. I'm trying to discriminate between groups that are at high risk for grooming and abusing young men between the ages of 11-17. If you show me heterosexuals or women are a higher risk group you would have a good argument that the BSA might want to revisit its policy. Try providing data not just baseless accusations against my motives and character.

In the last analysis my suspicion is that the BSA has made the decision based on the stated moral values of its constituents more than any risk factors in a given population.

[KevinG]

In the last analysis my suspicion is that the BSA has made the decision based on the stated moral values of its constituents more than any risk factors in a given population.

...and I would be correct in that assumption. http://www.venturingbsa.com/scouting.d/faq.d/issues.d/homosexuality.html